3)reading
Zahra Fayaz Reading Towards acquiring communicative competence through reading ' ' ' '''Introduction ' The ability to read in a second language (L2) is considered to be an essential skill for academic students and it represents the primary way for independent language learning (Carrell and Grabe 2002). In addition, arguments for the importance of this skill abound in the amount of reading research conducted in the last few decades, which has greatly refined and enriched our knowledge about the enigmatic nature of reading comprehension. One strong outcome of this research is that it has helped us to better understand why the skill of reading was traditionally considered a passive skill with no place in L2 teaching, and how it has been increasingly recognized as an interactive, constructive and contextualized process with a key role in developing learners’ communicative competence 'Approaches to learning and teaching reading: ' ' ' '''1. 'Reading within an environmentalist approach ' Up to the end of the 1960s the field of language learning was dominated by environmentalist ideas that avoided speculation about the workings of the human mind and concentrated only on observable facts outside the person. Moreover, modeling and practicing the correct structures time after time were paramount (see Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor this volume). Environmentalist ideas shaped not just the theoretical conceptions of what reading was but also research (Venezky 2002). Yet early reading research focused chiefly on the nature of perception during reading and it became mainly restricted to the relation between stimuli as words and responses as word recognition. most language programs tackled reading comprehension by focusing on the development of decoding skills, and their major instructional task was to teach readers to discriminate among the visual symbols they encountered on a printed page before they could translate them into word sounds (Pearson and Stephens 1994). Furthermore, error was prevented in order to achieve oral correctness. 2. 'Reading within an innatist approach ' The early view of reading as a passive, perceptual process was first challenged by the 1960s by Chomsky (1957, 1965) with his theory of language and language development which undermined the behaviourists’ models of language learning that prevailed throughout the 1950s. Chomsky’s (1957, 1965) theory of language provided the basis for the innatist theory of language learning (see Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor this volume), which claims that children are born with a predisposition to language acquisition. Thus, together with the advent of the discipline of psycholinguistics which attempted to test Chomsky’s contentions of language and language development, cognitive processes began to gain more attention. By the mid-1960s reading practitioners were wondering how an innatist position would work in studying the acquisition of reading and a new generation of reading research began to test that idea. This research came mainly from the work carried out in psycholinguistics and in particular from the work of Goodman (1965, 1967) and Smith (1971). Goodman (1965) conducted one of the first studies to explain the role of errors or miscues (Goodman 1965) made by readers when reading aloud and his experiment resulted in two important findings. First, learners were able to read a far greater number of words in context than without a context (i.e., word lists). Second, miscues were due to the reader’s intention to make sense from the written text. Goodman’s application of the miscue concept gave a new meaning to oral reading errors, as they became positive aspects in the understanding of the reading process. Later, in a seminal work, Goodman (1967) posited that reading was a psycholinguistic guessing game in which readers guess or predict the text’s meaning on the basis of textual information and activation of background knowledge, then confirm or correct their guesses, and thereby reconstruct the message. In addition, he described the three sources of information (what he called cue systems) that readers make use of to reconstruct text meaning: 1) graphophonic cues (or knowledge of syntactic constrains); and 3) semantic cues (or knowledge of the meaning of words) As a result of such a view of reading, learners were taught to become active readers (Reid 1993), that is, to derive meaning from the text by predicting and guessing its meaning by using both their knowledge of language and their background knowledge. Most important, errors were no longer considered negative aspects that should be prevented. Instead, they were viewed as a way to better understand the reading process (Pearson and Stephens 1994). 3. 'Reading within an interactionist approach ' ' '''By the late 1970s researchers were attempting to identify comprehension skills. This significant change, though, grew out of the interactionist approach the cognitive psychology field, researchers started to conduct studies on basic processes in reading. They analyzed what happened during the reading act and they incorporated notions of how readers represented text in memory. A major development within this field was the emergence of story grammars. A story grammar is a structural account of narrative stories that readers develop, based on acquisition of knowledge about human interaction. Research conducted in the field of sociolinguistics contributed to reconceptualize the notion of context (Shuy 1986; Pearson and Stephens 1994). '''Teaching reading within a communicative competence framework ' Communicative approaches to L2 language teaching have evolved over the past two decades. A strong background influence is associated with the work of Hymes (1971), who was the first to argue that Chomsky’s (1965) competence-performance dichotomy did not include any reference to aspects of language use in social practice. Hymes (1971) was the first to point out that what was needed was a characterization of not just how language is structured internally but also an explanation of language behavior for given communicative goals. Therefore, he proposed the notion of communicative competence, which included both grammatical competence as well as the rules of language use in social context and the norms of appropriacy. From the 1980s on, various models of communicative competence have given specifications of the different components which should integrate the communicative competence construct in order to make the process of L2 teaching more effective (Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983; Savignon 1983; Bachman 1987, 1990; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell 1995; Alcón 2000; Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor this volume). In such a construct, the reading skill plays an essential role in facilitating the acquisition of communicative competence. Areas of research that influence L2 reading instruction ' Reading is not an inherently natural process in the same way that speaking and listening are in a first language (L1). Unlike our first spoken language, which one might say “comes for free,” nothing is free with respect to reading. Learning to read requires considerable cognitive effort and a long learning process, whether one is learning to read in the L1 or in a second language (L2). If a person is not taught to read, in one way or another (e.g., by a teacher, a parent, a sibling), that person will not learn to read (Grabe and Stoller 2002) '''The nature of reading ' We all read for a variety of purposes, and as we read for different purposes, we often vary the cognitive processes and knowledge resources that we use. So, it is not straightforward to identify one purpose for reading as the single way to interpret what we mean by reading. At the same time, the many purposes for reading that can be commonly identified, share the same cognitive processes and knowledge resources, but in differing combinations and with differing emphases given to these processes and resources. For example, when we want information from a manual, we will search for the right place by some combination of scanning for key terms and skimming small segments for meaning to see if we are in the right area of the text. When we read a newspaper we read headlines and often skim news stories to see if we want to slow down and read more carefully. When we read a good novel at night, we generally don’t skim (unless we get bored), but we usually don’t read carefully to remember details either. When we are trying to learn new information, we read more slowly, thinking about how information fits with prior information in the text and with our own background knowledge that we have. All of these are purposes for reading. As we read for different purposes, we shift how we use our co-cognitive processes and knowledge resources. It is possible to talk about a number of these purposes with general labels such as the following: Scanning, skimming, reading for general understanding, reading to learn, reading to integrate and reading to evaluate critically. All of these various purposes need to be related to underlying cognitive processes and resources so that we understand better how processes and resources define these purposes systematically. 'Reading strategies ' Over the last 30 years or so, already many different reading strategies have been identified strategies can be categorized into metacognitive (including purpose-oriented, comprehension monitoring, and strategies that focus on learning from text), cognitive (including strategies for interacting with the author and the text, strategies involving different ways of reading, strategies for handling unknown words, and those making use of one’s prior knowledge in some way), as well as social and affective strategies, among others. Carrell(1998: 4) describes it this way: Strategic reading is a prime characteristic of expert readers because it is woven into the very fabric of ‘reading for meaning,’ and the development of this cognitive ability. Reading strategies – which are related to other cognitive strategies enhancing attention, memory, communication, and learning – allow readers to elaborate, organize, and evaluate information derived from text. Because strategies are controllable by readers, they are personal cognitive tools that can be used selectively and flexibly. And, reading strategy use reflects both metacognition and motivation, because readers need to have both the knowledge and the disposition to use strategies. 'How do good readers use reading strategies? ' Although learning to use strategies has repeatedly been shown to facilitate comprehension in reading, using strategies effectively is not just a matter of learning to use a couple of “good ones,” and then using them wherever we can, without an understanding of why we’re using them. In fact, it is probably safe to say that there are no strategies that are in themselves inherently good or bad (Anderson 1991). What one reader may find useful when reading a particular text may not be very effective for another reader in a different situation. Unfortunately, simply using certain strategies may not necessarily guarantee comprehension, and conversely, not using certain strategies may not necessarily result in the lack of comprehension, either. The picture that is beginning to form of good strategy users from the reading research is that they are “strategic,” which means that they: - Are primarily focused on the drive to obtain meaning from a text, not on “using strategies”. - Are aware of their purpose for reading, whether it be for pleasure, for obtaining important information needed to perform a task (e.g., for performing a procedure, writing a paper, making a decision), or to learn something new (Pressley 2000; Grabe and Stoller 2002). Within that context, then, they tailor their strategies specifically to fit the particular task involved (Oxford 1994). - Overview a text to decide if it is relevant to their purpose and to identify the portions that might be particularly relevant or helpful (Pressley 2000). They then read selectively, focusing on those parts of the text that are most relevant to their purpose (Ediger 2000). - Use strategies in ordered hierarchies that are generated from an analysis of the steps in the process needed to accomplish their task (Pressley and Woloshyn 1995). - Know and utilize multiple strategies, including cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and other types, integrating and orchestrating their use in relation to each other, and then evaluating their effectiveness in achieving the purpose (Block 1986; Oxford 1994); Well-tailored combinations of strategies are more effective than single strategies (O’Malley and Chamot 1990). - Make use of, and integrate their prior knowledge, not only of the world, but also of the nature of texts, and of how they have used different strategies for different purposes in the past, to help them make sense of what they read (Block 1986; Pressley et al. 1992). Having prior world knowledge and knowledge of the topic of a text influences which strategies they need to use (Afflerbach 1990) and the effectiveness of the strategy use (Pressley and Woloshyn 1995; Nassaji 2003). - Make particularly effective use of metacognitive strategies, the “higher level thinking” (or “thinking about how one is thinking”), the monitoring system that readers use in order to direct and control their overall strategy use. They use metacognitive strategies for planning, selecting and using strategies, monitoring comprehension and effectiveness of strategy use, and learning (Carrell 1998; Anderson 2002). - Make effective use of varying strategies for handling unknown vocabulary, with the quality of their strategy use more important than the quantity, and in relation to the various sources of knowledge they have available for inferring meaning (Nassaji 2003). - Differ in their use of strategies, depending on their gender, language and cultural background, age, beliefs, motivations, or learning style (Oxford 1996). - Know if their strategy use was effective or not by assessing whether they were able to accomplish their purpose (Ediger 2000). 'Defining fluent reading ' Anyone who is reading this book is almost certainly a fluent reader of his or her L1 and possibly of one or more second languages. Defining fluent reading is not an easy task, however, specifically because we all have some deep-set notions about the meaning of fluency. Think for a moment about someone you consider to be a fluent L1 reader. Is it someone who seems to devour material of all kinds? Is it someone who can remember, summarize, discuss and comment on what was read? Someone who loves to read? Then, think about someone you know who is a fluent reader in an L2. Is that person a fluent reader in L1 as well as L2? Would you describe that person’s L2 reading in the same ways that you describe his or her L1 fluent reading? Does that person love to read? How many people can you name who “hate to read” in their native language but love to read in an L2? Is there a lesson for us there? As you can see, the issues here are complex and often inter-related. Despite our individual notions and experiences of fluent reading in native and second languages, we need to establish a basic definition of fluent reading in order to agree on the best ways to teach students to become fluent readers. Reading fluency in both L1 and L2 is not a static or fixed process that once achieved remains constant. We are not all fluent readers, even in L1, all of the time with all texts. Comprehension and speed vary with different tasks. First of all, not all L1 readers are fluent readers, and certainly few of us are fluent readers when confronted with materials that are specialized, de-contextualized, in a technical area outside our experience or simply not consistent with our cultural background and schemata. A fluent reader of 20th century novels may flounder when confronted with an economics text. A computer geek who has never read much fiction may be lost when reading a stream-of-consciousness novel. An article about physics leaves me completely baffled. Moreover, even fluent readers vary their speed according to the text they are reading and their purpose(s) for reading that text. When we read to learn or remember, we tend to read a bit slower. When we read through a detective story to discover who the villain is, we read rapidly (Grabe and Stoller 2002). 'Here are five tips to help you improve your reading: ' 1. Styles of reading 2. Active reading 3. A tip for speeding up your active reading 4. Spotting authors' navigation aids 5. Words and vocabulary 'Styles of reading: ' There are three styles of reading which we use in different situations: '''1) 'Scanning: for a specific focus ' The technique you use when you're looking up a name in the phone book: you move your eye quickly over the page to find particular words or phrases that are relevant to the task you're doing. It's useful to scan parts of texts to see if they're going to be useful to you: A)the introduction or preface of a book B)the first or last paragraphs of chapters C)the concluding chapter of a book. ' 2) Skimming: for getting the gist of something ' The technique you use when you're going through a newspaper or magazine: you read quickly to get the main points, and skip over the detail. It's useful to skim: to preview a passage before you read it in detail to refresh your understand of a passage after you've read it in detail. Use skimming when you're trying to decide if a book in the library or bookshop is right for you. 3) 'Detailed reading: for extracting information accurately ' ' '''Where you read every word, and work to learn from the text. In this careful reading, you may find it helpful to skim first, to get a general idea, but then go back to read in detail. Use a dictionary to make sure you understand all the words used. ' '''